This has global repercussions, even in developed nations. In Australia, for instance, a parcel of soy meal - one of the main ingredients of chicken feed – was quoted at AU$460. But as of July 9 the price is AU$645. Indeed, the Sustainable Consumption Institute in the UK claims food that families now take for granted could become too expensive if global temperatures rise in line with the current trends and reach 39.2 degrees Fahrenheit (4 degrees Celsius).

In the developing world where food expenditure makes up a larger proportion of daily budgets, the effects can be devastating. In 2008, and again 2011, record global food prices contributed to a steep rise in poverty and hunger, as well as sparking rioting and political instability around the world.

So why, in 2012, do we continue to experience a situation where food prices are increasingly volatile, and where so many people are denied their fundamental right to food? We would argue that there are five fundamental causes:

Climate change represents the ultimate threat to food security. There is strong scientific consensus that the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events,such as the drought currently afflicting the American mid-west, are likely to increase under climate change. On July 10, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded that last year’s record drought in Texas was made “roughly 20 times more likely” because of man made climate change, and saidthat anthropogenic warming had to be a factor in the drought. Enough said, really.

Inequality of income and access to resources, both within and between countries, is the biggest socio-economic driver behind hunger. Unequal access to resources means that huge areas of land are being used for rich consumers in distant markets, instead of food for local consumption.

Industrial farming has come at the expense of declining soil fertility, freshwater pollution and depletion, and loss of biodiversity, while also driving millions of farmers into debt and eroding rural communities’ ability to exert control over crucial resources such as land and seeds. Meanwhile, genetically engineered crops are not designed to feed the poor or to decrease prices, do not increase yields in a sustainable manner, and have failed under extreme fluctuations in temperature and moisture.

Loss and waste of food from harvest to table is a major issue. Enough food is already produced in the world to feed every human being on the planet comfortably, and further gains could be achieved to feed future generations through the application of agro-ecological farming practices. But current estimates suggest that as much as 30 % of the food grown today is spoiled or wasted, an unacceptably high figure.

Financial speculation on commodity futures markets has greatly exacerbated the volatility of food prices. Prices on the futures markets for corn and wheat have already risen by 38% and 33%, respectively, over the past three weeks. If transmitted onto global markets, inflation of this magnitude could again have a disastrous impact on the millions of low-income households worldwide who spend a majority of their budget on food.

Greenpeace is calling on governments to take action to end this recurring nightmare. Key steps needed to prevent future food crises include cutting greenhouse gas emissions to slow climate change, scaling-up investment in more resilient and ecological agricultural practices, addressing inequalities in income and access to resources, and drastically cutting food waste from field to fork. Regulators must also be given the power to strictly limit the role of speculative capital in food commodity futures markets.

The weather will always be beyond human control. But measures to prevent runaway climate change that do impact weather, develop more sustainable farming systems, improve the economic position of poor food producers and consumers, and protect the most vulnerable from predatory speculative behaviour, definitely lie within our grasp.

Dr Julian Oram is Senior Political Advisor, Sustainable Agriculture, at Greenpeace International

Threatening the voter’s children with climate change alienates voters to vote Republican. It’s time to move on from the CO2 mistake folks. Let’...

Threatening the voter’s children with climate change alienates voters to vote Republican. It’s time to move on from the CO2 mistake folks. Let’s get ahead of the curve like real progressives.
1-Occupywallstreet does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded carbon trading stock markets run by corporations.
2-Julian Assange is of course a climate change denier.
3-Obama has not mentioned the crisis in the last two State of the Unions addresses.
4-Canada killed Kyoto with a newly elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, even the millions of scientists.
Climate Change Science: Exaggeration trumps any and all scientific consensus:
The scientists always say the crisis is “probable” or “likely” and they never say a crisis of unstoppable warming is 100% for certain.
“Help, my planet is on fire………………..maybe?”
Climate change was NOT an untruth or a conspiracy; it was exaggerated research and a legal lie in a feeding frenzy of politics and greed. History is calling us all fools already.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) Peter
says:

Right on Greenpeace. Research has found a diecernible reduction in crop yields from climate change already in most world regions. We are absolutely co...

Right on Greenpeace. Research has found a diecernible reduction in crop yields from climate change already in most world regions. We are absolutely comitted to more than todays warming due to lags in the climate system. The paltry combined national emissions reduction policy pledges to the UN commit us to over 4C warming by 2100 and over 8C warming eventually after 2100. See www.climatechange-food security.org.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) http://www.energyloadcalc.com
says:

I see a lot of kids coming out of college and they are shocked they find out how much food actually costs. It continues to rise. I think another factor is the increase costs of oil. It seems to impact any sort of production

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) iav
says:

Basics:
1. We experience very heavy economic crisis affecting many types of business and millions of people.
2. Many scientists conclude t...

Basics:
1. We experience very heavy economic crisis affecting many types of business and millions of people.
2. Many scientists conclude that the economic consequences from the worsening environmental situation resulting from climate change will be even heavier. For instance: the financial loses from just one hurricane are measured in hundreds of billions of dollars.
3. Energy issue and its multiple aspects "weigh" more and more: growing needs, prices, abundance, political (in)dependence, degree of pollution, etc.

We are way over 7 billion, and except the 2 billion people that struggle every day for basics like water and food, the most of the rest try to live the movie version of the American way of life, for which we need 2 more planets like Earth to feed our irrational consumer needs.
The challenges (to manage and to provide job and food security for so many people, and to handle with the consequences of their consumption) are enormous.

Unprecedented situation requires unprecedented steps. In this relation, I would like to ask you kindly to consider the possibilities described in Desert Ice Project - http://www.deserticeproject.com

There you will find a description of the project aimed to fight global warming (and related desertification / drought, food and water shortage, poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, illegal immigration, terror, violence and conflicts, etc.) by global, complex measures - global initiative / network of local focused solutions to specific regions.
If the situation is so bad and even going worse, we must not exclude any alternative.

The emphasis is on the belief that basically we can react to this knot of problems in two key ways:
1. By intensive greening (more trees and leafs - more absorbed CO2, preserved moisture/WATER, more stable soil, more jobs, more own produced FOOD by the locals, more income and profits, more stable economies and improved living conditions for more people, reduced migration, improved security, etc.). This step alone won't help, because industrial pollution will go on.
2. By sophisticated filtering and energy efficient systems radically reducing heat-trapping gases that flow in the atmosphere – all shaped in one international system of standards, which does not allow one to take unfair advantage compared to the others. Only limiting our greenhouse emissions (CCS techniques alone) won't help, because desertification, drought, water/food shortage and following social problems will continue. So, there must be applied both methods.

This is a large economic initiative that will mobilize many sectors of business - engineering, construction, banking, security, education, agriculture, science, etc. DIP includes large infrastructure projects, that will attract large contractors, and long chain of subcontractors; taking credits; reconsidering ideas that were underestimated so far. For instance: directing resources to "green" production, let say solar panels will open a lots of new jobs in this sector, and this will lower the prices, which will make these panels more accessible by more people. And then the government may oblige business and households for their massive usage - for every car / building roof, for every cell phone and laptop, etc.

Unlike the geo-engineering projects this operation is the most natural one. It only reverses the "negative geo-engineering" that we already did to some places in our planet - deforestation, pollution, too much land used for grazing, etc. Many of its stages are applied already in different parts of the world. They just need to be connected in one system.

Many requirements set by environmentalists seem to be too expensive from the economists' point of view. And the opposite - what industry and business want is often unacceptable by the green. This project tries to find the crossing point between, and it should be assessed by both sides.

Every problem is an opportunity in disguise. This is a chance for us, not just for solving the current triple E3 (Environment-Energy-Economy) crisis, but to put international relations / co-operation into a new level.

I hope that this might be interesting for you from your perspective, and that the proposed measures could initiate a serious discussion at future climate/economic summits.

P.S. Latest (seemingly unrelated) news about the iceberg breaking off from Greenland, giant iceberg drifting nearby Australia, record temperature extremes, the concentration of economic interests (military presence) around both polar areas, the insecurity of Food/Energy/other resources' prices, and growing social unrest (people don't see Liberté Égalité Fraternité in reality) reminds us that we are running out of time.